I thought that it was a very poor reason. It has been my experience that some of the things that I desire, upon critical review, are not always in my best interest.

True. When I believed in the god of Jehovah's Witnesses, that definitely was not in my best interest, and I am increasingly finding out about religions and so called Christian denominations that are damaging as well, and keep their followers away from the true God who offers refreshment, comfort, peace and strength.

Living in false religion, especially a destructive cult like I was destroys families, destroys lives, takes away happiness, keeps people uneducated and unproductive members of society. Sadly though, I have friends and family members who have been freed from life in the cult, but whose lives really haven't changed.

Hello, I hope you are sincere. If you are, im sure God will guide you. I was an athiest before, I was sincere about wanting to find answers and it opened a part of my life that has truely completed me. Good luck friend.

First, I recommend trying to approach a general theistic God, if you find good enough reasons to believe that a general theistic God exists, then you can work on finding out which God it is. That's how I took my approach and after realizing that there were good reasons to believe in God, and not comparably good reasons to be atheist, I did my research on multiple religions and chose Christianity. Finding out which God was actually easier than accepting a general theistic God.

This debate has a pretty good outline on some of the reasons to believe that God exists. Of course, you get a chance to hear the atheist's case as well.

Probably the best debate though was William Lane Craig vs Peter McMillan because Peter actually did try to respond to Craig's arguments and it was a very good debate for both sides.

Evidence of God stares you in the face. I hope you will come to see it.

Interests:My trade is whatever pays the bills. My real passion, and what I hope to make my living from someday, is old-time carpentry. Felling trees, hewing logs with a broad-axe, and building or restoring log structures in the Piney Woods.

I have come seeking reasons to believe in God. Thus far in my studies I have only found one and that is the desire to do so.

I can assure you that I come with an open mind but also that it is led by reason.

Welcome to the forums. If you have conditions in which have to be met in order to believe then you have to be more specific. And you also have to understand that the supernatural does not always meet the criteria of being reasonable. But then again it would not be supernatural if it did. I will list a few things to make you ponder it.

1) The first cause or first existence of anything cannot be explained naturally or reasonably. So what would be left?2) There is no explanation for laws that exist that make the universe work. There is not natural process to explain and science cannot even make a first step into explaining it. Not even how they not only exist but are fine tuned to bring order to where there would be chaos.3) That if all matter came from the same source such as the Big Bang, then all matter would be as old at the Big Bang and all would date the same instead of different ages. Because regardless of how long it stayed a ball of molten matter, and it had to cool off to leave dating markers. It's really as old as the supposed Big Bang. Showing that the age dating process is flawed from the get go.4) Because creation was done before the first sin, and according to God's word time without sin is eternal. So the 6 days of creation were done under eternal laws. Laws that cannot be the same as what we observe because where we are is not eternal. So one of the things that has to be different is aging. No aging means that everything has to be created already aged. For why create humans and animals as babies that would never grow up? This is why God commanded each created life to go forth and multiply is because He was illustrating that all created life was created old enough to bare offspring. And if God can create living matter already aged why not dead matter as well? You see all this explains all the different ages because age was part of the equation for creation.

Normally the welcome thread is not the appropriate thread for such, but you open the door with your OP:

Hello all,I have come seeking reasons to believe in God. Thus far in my studies I have only found one and that is the desire to do so.I can assure you that I come with an open mind but also that it is led by reason.

It’s kind of hard to believe you are being genuine, when you say on one hand “I can assure you that I come with an open mind”, but then drop innuendoes that those who don’t agree with you aren’t led by reason AND that the ONLY reason they DO believe in God is simply because they “desire to do so”, as if there were no evidence or logical rationale to do so.

In fact, the exact same can be claimed about atheism.

I suggest that we take it one point at a time.That would be fine…

If you have conditions in which have to be met in order to believe then you have to be more specific.

Only that the evidence be reasonable.Okay, are you talking about logical, empirical scientific or both? Because there is a difference, yet the empirical scientific method is directly related to logic (a derivative of) and requires logic. Anyway, I think you get my meaning…

And you also have to understand that the supernatural does not always meet the criteria of being reasonable.How do I know when to abandon reason or which unreasonable evidence that I should accept? This seems a good example of the logical fallacy of Special Pleading.

Supernatural (or other-than-natural, metaphysical, ethereal etc…) is hardly unreasonable, nor is it abandoning reason. In fact the Laws of Logic, the empirical scientific method (etc…) are themselves metaphysical, other-than-natural, or without physical substance; just as are thoughts, altruistic love, and reasoning itself.

So, if you want to do some special pleading, you will be using the supernatural (other-than-natural, metaphysical, ethereal etc…) to do so.

1) The first cause or first existence of anything cannot be explained naturally or reasonably. So what would be left?

My inclination is to say that 'I don't know' rather than to make up some explanation. Especially one that contradicts all the other things that I know about the Universe.

Saying that “you don’t know” is basically living your life by faith alone in a universe that you have no explanation for, and yet you know:

Is not infiniteSince it is not infinite, it had a beginningIf it had a beginning, it had a beginner

Further: Since you are alive, and you know that life cannot come from non-life, and atheistic materialism cannot logically, rationally, OR scientifically posit a “materialistic” fact based explanation for our “Origins” (the universe, life, intelligence). Therefore you are living your materialistic life by faith alone, sans ANY “reasonable evidence”, and the BEST evidence you can come up with AGAINST God, is that you cannot accept all the evidence FOR God… Then you attempt to hijack metaphysical phenomena like, rationale, logic, reasoning (etc...) as if materialistic atheism has cornered the market on such, and no one else has (or can) utilize any of it.

I take it that this is the appropriate thread then. I suggest that we take it one point at a time.Only that the evidence be reasonable.How do I know when to abandon reason or which unreasonable evidence that I should accept? This seems a good example of the logical fallacy of Special Pleading.My inclination is to say that 'I don't know' rather than to make up some explanation. Especially one that contradicts all the other things that I know about the Universe.

I can show where what you believe is unreasonable as well but yet you accept it anyway which means that the determination here is more of a bias nature which means we could never reach your conditions.

So the questions should be:1) Do all reasonable things have to be natural and done by nature?2) And why do you accept things that cannot be explained by a natural process as being true and reasonable anyway?

Like: Can you explain the natural process in which the laws of physics came about and where balanced to cause order insted of chaos?

Because if you cannot explain why what you believe is more reasonable even though "you" cannot explain it yourself then we cannot and will never meet your criteria because of the bias that exists. and if it's not bias then explain how one unreasonable unexplainable process is any better than another? I ask this because you cannot prove that what you believe is 100% reasonable. And if you can please explain away we are all ears.

Normally the welcome thread is not the appropriate thread for such, but you open the door with your OP:

It’s kind of hard to believe you are being genuine, when you say on one hand “I can assure you that I come with an open mind”, but then drop innuendoes that those who don’t agree with you aren’t led by reason AND that the ONLY reason they DO believe in God is simply because they “desire to do so”, as if there were no evidence or logical rationale to do so.

He's not. Because there is no criteria for being reasonable that can be listed as a 123 thing to meet. It's an individual standard that is determine differently by each individual. So in turn he does not want to accept the proof he can always change the idea of what's reasonable to make sure it never reaches that status. Basically what kind of thread he has started here is a safe debate thread. One where his ideals and beliefs can never be challenged.

Prototyoical:So is there a written criteria for being reasonable? Nope. So what are you afraid of that you would start a safe debate instead of getting into a type of debate that would really challenge your current ideals and beliefs that would more fulfill the goal you claim you are seeking? Are you afraid that you might actually have your beliefs shaken here?

What I said was that the only reason to believe in God, that I have found, was the desire to do so. You may have many other reasons to believe in God and those are what I came looking for, as stated. Your inferences and innuendo are your own and not mine.

In fact, the exact same can be claimed about atheism.

The only reason to not believe in a God is the desire to do so. Hmmm, I suppose that you could say that. Is that what you believe? Are you being genuine? My statement referred entirely to my own observations and not to you at all. If you were offended by my assessment of the evidence supporting theism why then would you repeat my offence? Do you not treat people as you wish to be treated? Is this the level of discourse? But Peace man. I am not here to attack or insult anyone.

Okay, are you talking about logical, empirical scientific or both?

Yeah, either logical or empirical will do. I am talking about evidence that I would accept as I am the final arbiter of what I believe to be true. As is everyone else. Generally speaking, Webster's definition should serve;

a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof

I do not believe that I have all the information or answers so I am looking...with my eyes and my mind open. I do not approach theism with a mind set of opposition. We may disagree about a great many things but I would be surprised if I could not learn something from you. I came here to be corrected if necessary. I would never be so arrogant as to tell you what you should believe. I realize that you have other points that I will be happy to address if we get that far. Perhaps if we can get past the idea that we are somehow adversaries then we can communicate so much more effectively.

"reasonable doubt;" that state of minds of jurors in which they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction as to the truth of the charge.

I take your point that what is reasonable varies between men. Let's see if there are any areas where we agree.

Are you afraid that you might actually have your beliefs shaken here?

No, I am not afraid of that. That is what I am here for. My life has been one long shedding of misconceptions. Eventually, I hope to be rid of them all.

May I suggest a more directed conversation. Let's focus on this question.

So the questions should be:1) Do all reasonable things have to be natural and done by nature?

I would drop the 'reasonable' qualifier. If it is a thing then it is natural. If there are 'supernatural things' then they are, by definition, outside of nature and do not interact with anything that is inside nature. They are not detectable by any natural means. If they are detectable then they are not outside of nature.

First, I recommend trying to approach a general theistic God, if you find good enough reasons to believe that a general theistic God exists, then you can work on finding out which God it is. That's how I took my approach and after realizing that there were good reasons to believe in God, and not comparably good reasons to be atheist, I did my research on multiple religions and chose Christianity. Finding out which God was actually easier than accepting a general theistic God.

This debate has a pretty good outline on some of the reasons to believe that God exists. Of course, you get a chance to hear the atheist's case as well.

Probably the best debate though was William Lane Craig vs Peter McMillan because Peter actually did try to respond to Craig's arguments and it was a very good debate for both sides.

Evidence of God stares you in the face. I hope you will come to see it.

Peter Millican started really good, but then devolved into citing strawmen and equivocating.....

Anti-God etc"I'm a skeptic"Craig already said that his disbelief to evolution is based on science, rather Millican claims its based on Biblical infallibly...

Hey ikester.We could use something like this;"reasonable doubt;" that state of minds of jurors in which they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction as to the truth of the charge.I take your point that what is reasonable varies between men. Let's see if there are any areas where we agree.

What would be the criteria for reasonable doubt? You see again you can just change the idea of what it means so that you can always be sure that what you don;t want to believe will never threaten what you do want to believe.

No, I am not afraid of that. That is what I am here for. My life has been one long shedding of misconceptions. Eventually, I hope to be rid of them all.

The biggest scare for an atheist is to find out what he or she is against and claims does not exist, actually does exist. Some don;t really care one way or the other they would choose to be against even of God appeared before them. You choose atheism as your world view because you are against theism which means you are also against God. Being against something you claim does not exist is not reasonable. Because to be against it logically it first has to exist. Which means either you are chasing things that don;t exist and wasting your time, or you do know God exists but prefer to be ignorant to that fact. I don;t believe in ghosts. Do I go and start a Aghost group? Do I put up websites, blogs, webpages, forums etc... To discuss my disbelief in ghosts? Nope. This is because I "truly" believe there are no ghosts so why would I waste my time on the subject?

But if I did do all these things and allow that obsession to take over my life what would all my efforts really say about my belief? That I know that ghosts probably do exist it just that I need to "justify" my disbelief in ghost on a daily bases. Because if I truly believed that they did not exist and I would not give 2 cents of my time to it?

Example: If you ran into a atheist that "truly" believed God did not exist, how much time would he invest proving or justifying what he truly believes does not exist?

May I suggest a more directed conversation. Let's focus on this question.I would drop the 'reasonable' qualifier. If it is a thing then it is natural. If there are 'supernatural things' then they are, by definition, outside of nature and do not interact with anything that is inside nature. They are not detectable by any natural means. If they are detectable then they are not outside of nature.

Now that's funny. You cannot make a criteria for resonable because there is not one so you are safe. But when you do finally make one by doing away with the original one you make a criteria that is also as safe as the one you started out with. All you are doing here is proving what I have said. Each attempt points to the direction I said it was going and to the purpose you started out with.

So now you totally eliminate the possibility of any of us here being able to show you anything by making this claim: " If there are 'supernatural things' then they are, by definition, outside of nature and do not interact with anything that is inside nature. They are not detectable by any natural means. If they are detectable then they are not outside of nature". end of quote.

With that statement you gave yourself a 100% way out of ever having to accept anything beyond what you currently do. So safe of a deabte everytime.

If your debate were a windows operating system it would be stuck in safe mode.

ikester says - What would be the criteria for reasonable doubt? You see again you can just change the idea of what it means so that you can always be sure that what you don;t want to believe will never threaten what you do want to believe.

I suppose that is as true for you as it is for me or anyone else. You are welcome to offer your own definitions. How do you decide what is reasonable to you? How about you stop assuming that I am a liar with no integrity.

The biggest scare for an atheist is to find out what he or she is against and claims does not exist, actually does exist.

This may be true for some but is certainly not true for me. Again, I am looking for reasons to change my mind. Do you have any? Offer some up and I will see if they are reasonable to me. It may be that what is reasonable to you is not to me. C'est la vie.

You choose atheism as your world view because you are against theism which means you are also against God.

Wrong. I am not against God. The idea of God is a very appealing idea. I am against unsupported beliefs. My beliefs must be supported by evidence that is reasonable to me. The very same way that your beliefs must be supported by evidence that is reasonable to you.

Being against something you claim does not exist is not reasonable. Because to be against it logically it first has to exist.

Right. That is why I am not 'against' God because, in my opinion, God does not exist. I am against the idea of God which certainly does exist.

Do I go and start a Aghost group? Do I put up websites, blogs, webpages, forums etc... To discuss my disbelief in ghosts? Nope. This is because I "truly" believe there are no ghosts so why would I waste my time on the subject?

Well, you certainly put one up to discuss your disbelief in evolution. Why are you wasting your time doing that? Do you secretly believe in evolution?

So now you totally eliminate the possibility of any of us here being able to show you anything by making this claim: " If there are 'supernatural things' then they are, by definition, outside of nature and do not interact with anything that is inside nature. They are not detectable by any natural means. If they are detectable then they are not outside of nature".

Well ikester, it is called a strong argument. That is why I believe it. What is your definition for supernatural?

I suppose that is as true for you as it is for me or anyone else. You are welcome to offer your own definitions. How do you decide what is reasonable to you? How about you stop assuming that I am a liar with no integrity.

You are the one who said it, I did not. There must be some guilt there.

This may be true for some but is certainly not true for me. Again, I am looking for reasons to change my mind. Do you have any? Offer some up and I will see if they are reasonable to me. It may be that what is reasonable to you is not to me. C'est la vie.

And that is the perfect example. Different standards. But let's put this into better prospective. What kind of evidence do you need and what kind of person would you listen to that could present it? Because just to see what we got is a pretty big order. Unless you can be more specific there is not much I can help you with.

Wrong. I am not against God. The idea of God is a very appealing idea. I am against unsupported beliefs. My beliefs must be supported by evidence that is reasonable to me. The very same way that your beliefs must be supported by evidence that is reasonable to you.

That right there means you will never understand Christianity. You are looking for a specific way that God will just pop out of a box and say: Here I am.... But let's do a little test and see how you handle evidence that is not explanable by science.

And since reasonable is so important, and that I know you will reject this evidence. Please explain in detail what would make the evidence I presented above unreasonable in support of a Creator?

Right. That is why I am not 'against' God because, in my opinion, God does not exist. I am against the idea of God which certainly does exist.Well, you certainly put one up to discuss your disbelief in evolution. Why are you wasting your time doing that? Do you secretly believe in evolution?

At one time I pondered it. But no. All we creationist have to do is put up a website, forum, or blog on creation and just wait. It's like using a fish's favorite bait to catch it. While swimming through search engine waters looking for their favorite bait, the atheist will find our website forum or blog. And on top of that we don;t even have to advertise. Once you guys find us you talk about us and leave links to us from your own forums blogs and websites. We soon get gobs of visits with basically no effort. Our ranking gets better on the search engines because of all your side's efforts against what is claimed does not exist. Because we are so busy here dealing with all the traffic due to all of your side's efforts we very seldom get so unbusy that we visit some where else.

Well ikester, it is called a strong argument. That is why I believe it. What is your definition for supernatural?

When one particular viewpoint rules a sector that controls what viewpoints will be accepted or rejected what would one expect to be accepted or rejected 100% of the time? The viewpoint that rules will always be accepted and all others rejected.